Nokia, the best hardware you will never buy

Everyone seems quick to jump on the blame-anyone-but-Nokia-for-their-problems train, but I think the burden of Nokia's problems fall squarely on their shoulders.

Forbes reports:

I’ve been carrying a yellow Lumia 920 for about 8 months now and it is easy to spot in my purse. The battery life is spectacular compared to the phone it replaced.  The screen is easy to see and read.  Turn it 90 degrees and you can even read it with polarizing sunglasses when outside. Yellow was the theme of the day right down to yellow converse sneakers. Great excitement greeted the demonstration and the jaded journalists there applauded at different features. It was clear the phone was impressive and a hit.

And later in the article, they report:

It is hard to believe that Stephen Elop has now been at NOK for almost three years. He was correct in his initial assessment that the company was standing on the oft quoted ” burning platform” and needed to take drastic action.  He jettisoned almost all the company had left including its Symbian platform that was incapable of moving Nokia into the evolving future .  His options were really to become 1. another “me,too” Android offering or 2. to attempt to build an entirely new ecosystem around the Windows platform. Elop chose the later, tougher path but the only one which offered any chance of winning long term with something unique. Now that Samsung is so dominating the Android universe, by now any attempt at another Android phone would have left no hope for Nokia at all.

Which one is it? Is the phone hardware so great that it puts the phone in a class by itself, or is the software that needs to be different in order for them to build their own class?

I admit that I am bias. I was a faithful user of Nokia products up until they could no longer provide the features I needed on their phones.

Where I live we still suffer from spotty coverage due to the enormous distance between towns. Short of putting in cellular towers that support only one or two subscribers, you are going to find dead spots. When this happens, you want a handset that will be made to the most exacting quality so that it can get a signal when no other handset will. Those handsets were always Nokia.

I used Nokia handsets long after they had gone out of style simply because they were incredibly rugged and able to make calls where every other phone failed. I eventually had to give them up for a modern phone.

When Nokia had to choose between Android and Windows Mobile, I was really hoping they would choose Android. I knew that Nokia had the very best hardware, but I also wanted the very best software to go along with it. The software that I wanted was Android. They were the only ones that had a chance of getting the apps to compete with Apple.

Things haven't changed since then. You either use an Apple or an Android phone. There is no one else that has the apps, consumer backing, developer backing to make a splash in today's market.

When Nokia was making its decision, it had a place in the market. It was, and arguably still is, the best hardware manufacturer on the market today. If they hadn't hobbled themselves with software that no one is willing to use, it might be them as the leading Android manufacturer instead of Samsung. As it is, they manufacture the best hardware that no one will buy.

Is your mobile data being sold?

Tech Crunch has an article about changes to AT&T's privacy policy. They are thinking about selling your data to advertisers. Little did I realize that all the other major mobile phone carriers were already selling your data.

This isn't the end of the world, I suppose. It's nothing like what the NSA is doing, but it is one more drop in the bucket and erodes our privacy just a little bit more. The good news is that it's easy to opt out. All you have to do is follow the link to your phone company (all the major carriers are included) and add your choice to not participate in their program.

The NSA whistleblower

It seems like the Obama administration won't have to work too hard to find their latest leak. Edward Snowden has come forward and taken credit for uncovering the NSA's surveillance program against the American people.

It is a shame that someone has to go to such extreme lengths to try to protect the American people from the government that we elected.

It's a good story. I wish Mr. Snowden good luck, and I thank him for the service he has done for our country.

Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance

Okay Google, Get To Work

I just finished browsing Forbes website using Chrome beta on my Android phone. It was amazing! When I finished an article I could scroll up a little and a menu of related stories was available for me. I had read about this in the past, but this is the first time that I actually got to try it.

These are the kind of things that I want to be able to do. If someone has to have all my data, I want something in return for it. I want to be shown things that are of value to me that I would have missed on my own.

So far I think that Google has made more progress in this area than anyone else. They may be using my data for advertising, but they are giving me something of great value in return. As long as they don't turn evil, this is an exchange I am more than willing to make.

Are You Feeling Secure in the Government's Ability to Maintain your Privacy?

With all the breaking news about servers being accessed and telephone calls being logged by the NSA, I can't help but look at this new potential database of biometric information with a touch of cynicism.

From a Wired article:

Buried in the more than 800 pages of the bipartisan legislation (.pdf)  is language mandating the creation of the innocuously-named “photo tool,” a massive federal database administered by the Department of Homeland Security and containing names, ages, Social Security numbers and photographs of everyone in the country with a driver’s license or other state-issued photo ID.

Together in one convenient place for the first time is everything anyone could possible want to track you, steal your identity, check on your government benefits, or any other piece of information about you stored in virtually any computer in the entire world. This database would be the keys to the kingdom.

What could possible go wrong? After all, we know that the government has always handled these types of sensitive information with the utmost privacy and security. Not once has any information ever been downloaded to a government laptop and then been stolen with thousands -- if not millions -- of names and social security numbers waiting to be taken. Not once has a government agency ever been hacked and supposedly secure files been taken directly from the government servers. Federal agencies are much better monitored and regulated than that.

But lets suppose for a moment the Department of Homeland Security has some kind of magic server that could never be hacked even with all the Chinese hackers in the world working on it. And let's further suppose that no employee that isn't authorized will ever gain access to the server and they will never make a stupid, human mistake like leaving their laptops to be stolen. Would that solve the problem?

No.

Programs like this have a tendency to expand. What starts out as an expedient solution to a simple problem has a tendency to grow and mutate to the point where they aren't recognizable any longer.

Back to Wired:

For now, the legislation allows the database to be used solely for employment purposes. But historically such limitations don’t last. The Social Security card, for example, was created to track your government retirement benefits. Now you need it to purchase health insurance.

And purchasing health insurance isn't the only thing you need a Social Security card for. In my area you can't go to the doctor, get any help from the government, get a job, access your bank account through an ATM, verify that you are who you way you are over the phone, or anything else without a Social Security number.

Forming a database with all our information -- including everything necessary for a computer to recognize us -- couldn't possibly be a good idea. Not only should every civil liberties group be apposed to this legislation, every elected official and every voter should be against it regardless of party. There just isn't any good to come out of this for anyone.

Assistive Technology on Google Glass

I've always been a fan of technology. I want to be surrounded by computers, smart phones, remote controls, drones, radio controlled airplanes, or anything else with a wow factor. That alone would be good enough to get Google Glass if they weren't too expensive. But what would make Google Glass a necessity instead of being relegated to nothing more than an outdated, overrated Bluetooth headset would be if it could provide some assistive technology right in front of my eyes where it would be the most useful.

Being colorblind, it's difficult to communicate effectively with people that describe things in terms of color. There are rudimentary programs available for smartphones that do a pretty good job of distinguishing between the more basic colors. I want that ability -- or preferably an improved version -- right up there in front of my eyes instead of in my purse.

Old eyes, at least my old eyes, also sometimes have trouble making out fine print or small print at a distance. How about having a feature that would magnify the text that I am looking at if it falls below a certain visibility standard? It shouldn't matter whether the text is too far away for me to read or whether it is printed too small. If I am trying to read it and the text isn't large enough, I want my glasses to be able to compensate.

And while I am thinking about text, how about if they would change the color or text when someone makes the incredibly bad decision to print black text on a really dark red background. I know that the processors in cellphones can handle this type of action, I bet Google Glass could as well.

Provide me with interchangeable programs to highlight the things I want to see. Maybe I am driving and want a driving mode; something that would calculate how close I am to the car in front of me, give me a constant readout on my speed and other information from the dashboard, and perhaps alert me to any obstacles on the side of the road that might run out in my way whether it be a child or a deer.

Show me something that I can't see with my own eyes. Let me see what the world looks like in the infrared or ultraviolet. Perhaps this type of vision would be useful at some point, or maybe it could be overlaid on top of my already existing vision. Perhaps thermal enhanced vision would be perfect for the driving mode I wondered about above.

These are just a few of the ideas I have off the top of my head. These are the kind of things I want from a wearable device, not just a smartphone extension. I already have a camera on my smartphone that takes fantastic pictures. And since it is hand-held, I can probably get a much better angle for a picture than I ever could having it affixed to my eyebrow.

Google Keep vs Evernote

Is Google Keep's main competition Evernote? I don't think so. Evernote has been around for longer and has had time to greatly enhance their product. All the reviews seem to agree; Evernote is a more full featured product available across more platforms. Then why would Google release Keep?

One thing that was missing from the Android platform was any kind of note taking app. If you wanted to take any notes at all, you were essentially limited to using your email account to write emails to yourself. There had to be a better solution.

Enter Google Note. Note provides, free of charge, the functionality that was missing on their Android operating system. It ties into Google Drive which can provide further editing capabilities and makes everything available on your phone, computer, or laptop.

Note is fantastic in its limited sphere. If you need something more powerful, there will always be Evernote. I suspect that the target of Google's new program is Apple and the iphone, not Evernote.

You lose on any carrier contract

In case you missed it, it is now technically illegal to unlock your cell phone if you don't have the carrier's permission. A petition was started on the White House's website asking the administration to make a statement regarding the law as it stands. The President replied that he thought cell phones should be able to be unlocked as long as the person has met their obligation with the carrier.

This seems like a reasonable stance to me. The carrier wants to recoup its money so they can continue to subsidize cell phones to people, and if you have a cell phone you like, you should be able to unlock it and take it to a different carrier after you have met your obligations.

According to PC Mag, AT&T has come out and in favor of this approach themselves, or so it seems. Like so many things, the remaining problems are in the details.

Joan Marsh, a vice president at AT&T wrote:

As we make clear on our website, if we have the unlock code or can reasonably get it from the manufacturer, AT&T currently will unlock a device for any customer whose account has been active for at least 60 days; whose account is in good standing and has no unpaid balance; and who has fulfilled his or her service agreement commitment.

But what about the people that have fulfilled their contract by paying an early termination fee? The fee has gone up in recent years to cover the cost of the more expensive phones just in case someone decides to end their contract in this way. AT&T should still be getting their money, but will they still unlock the phone that you paid for? I don't know, but I doubt they have any reason to go out of their way to help an ex-customer.

So I suspect that if you don't purchase an unlocked phone on your own and take it to the phone company, you will be taken advantage of by any company you sign a contract with. While this article was specifically talking about AT&T, the other carriers aren't any different in their approach.

Verizon, meanwhile, will also unlock phones after 60 days provided your account is in good standing, while Sprint will make you wait 90 days, and T-Mobile has a 40-day policy.

I remember when Google started selling their phones already unlocked without any carrier subsidies. I thought they were crazy at the time; now, I am beginning to see them as the only way forward without being at the legal mercy of the phone carrier of your choice.

FaceBook, A Pickpocket's Best Friend

It's no secret that Facebook really wants all your information. What came as a complete surprise to me was that they were working just as aggressively to gain the same kind of knowledge over my banking accounts.

Facebook has some fun games to play if you are interested in wasting some time. To jump start your fun, you can spend a few dollars and get into the game faster. But if you ever spend money with Facebook, they will do everything in their power to make sure that they keep access to your financial information forever.

I spent a few dollars for my wife on one of these games. I didn't think it was a big deal. The purchase process went just like every other purchase process using PayPal. Using my wife's Facebook account I told Facebook what I wanted, I was transferred to PayPal, I had to enter my credentials including email address and password, and finally I was returned to Facebook with a message saying that my transaction went through.

Nothing funny happened during the transaction. There were no options or check boxes to opt in or opt out of anything. It was exactly like every other PayPal transaction I had ever seen, or so I though.

A couple of weeks later my wife wanted to spend a few more dollars on the game. No problem. I was prepared to walk her through the process, but there was no process to walk through. Facebook had kept the credentials and was able to take money directly out of my PayPal account with no passwords, credential checks, or any other form of security between the entire Facebook account and my bank accounts.

I was horrified! I wanted to know how this was allowed to happen. I checked with PayPal and sure enough, they honored the payment without so much as a whisper. I dug around in the transaction details and found there to be an open payment agreement between my wife's Facebook account and my PayPal account. Fortunately there was an opportunity to terminate the agreement. It was canceled on the spot.

I had my wife try to make another purchase from her Facebook account. Facebook tried to access my PayPal account again, but PayPal refused. After looking around in Facebook for exactly where the authorization to access my PayPal account was stored, I found their online help to be terribly out of date.

After the purchase failed, I tried again. This time I was brought to a screen asking me how I wanted to make the purchase. I selected PayPal again. While I was making the purchase I read all the fine print. There, buried in the print above the "agree and pay" button was the agreement for Facebook to retain open access to my PayPal account. There was no way to opt out. If I wanted to make the purchase, I had to allow Facebook access to my PayPal account.

I completed the purchase and dug around Facebook until I found where the information was kept. The only way to make sure that access to your accounts remains behind a password is to dig into Facebook's settings after the purchase and break the connection between your Facebook account and your bank account. It is a long, time consuming process that Facebook seems to change every time they redesign something on their site.

This is a horrible way to do business. Regardless of how many layers of security you have between random websites and your bank accounts, if you ever let Facebook through it will try to keep your accounts open to anything that access Facebook. And in this socially connected world, that makes your accounts potentially open to virtually the entire population of the Earth.

Security experts are constantly telling us about the number of people that fall victim to a confidence man cleaning out their bank account. With "features" like Facebook provides to assist you in your purchases, I am surprised that the number of victims is so small.

Google's Chrome Browser is Getting Better

Google's chrome browser is getting so much better than it ever has been in the past. Not only is it beautiful, but it is fast and makes most of your browsing needs easy. For me, the only downside is that it still doesn't provide as much fine-grained control for privacy and security as I would like.

I have been using the Google chrome browser on my android powered phone lately. It wasn't necessarily the best browser on my phone, but it was easy to use, boost the size of the text for old eyes to see, and worked seamlessly with the android operating system. What really made it stand out was when I also installed Google chrome on a computer.

When I logged on my computer with a Chrome browser, all the bookmarks that I was reading on my phone were available on my computer. I didn't have to do anything special, they were just there. It made it extremely convenient to move from the computer to my phone when I have to leave, and move back to the computer when I get back home.

When I installed Google chrome on a second computer (third device) all the settings for my privacy and security that I had set on the first computer were available instantly on the second computer. I didn't have to go through all the different settings to get things the way I wanted. Some of there were necessary to change (resolution, etc...) but others were there waiting for me.

The only downside that I see is that I am used to using different plugins on Firefox for keeping my browsing secure. Firefox extensions (namely No Script) not only allow site by site control as Google chrome does now, but settings for individual scripts provided for the site. Granted, in order to use these types of extensions, you have to have a relatively high knowledge of the underlying requests and scripts. Without it, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the Google chrome browser to anyone.

Update:

After using the Chrome browser for the day, I have decided to make it my default browser. I'm still keeping Firefox since there are some things that Firefox can do that other Chrome still doesn't do as well, but Chrome has been pleasing enough that, in addition its connectivity with my phone, I will think it is closer to my overall ideal browsing experience.

Facebook Heart Palpitations

I've been back on Facebook for over a day now, and I already have many things to report. First of all is that it is easy to find all your friends. Nearly everyone you have ever known is there and has their own Facebook account. And thanks to Facebook's statistical analysis, if you can find one friend on Facebook, you can find them all.

Facebook ended its sign up process with a request for my email address and password. While they assured me that they would never keep my information, I didn't want to give it to them. Not only is my email account one of my most secure services, there are people whose contact information I have that I don't want to give to Facebook. Not only do I not want to find them, I don't want them to find me. But Facebook is very persistent. Every time I log into Facebook -- either on the Internet or through my phone -- they ask me again for access to my email account to find more connections for me. And the more friends I have, the more people they tell me have used this service.

I personally don't care if every human being in the United States has used this service with zero ill effect; I don't want to use it, and I don't want to be pestered every time I log into my account. What I really want is a way to tell them to quit bothering me with their idea of how I should use the service.

It's understandable why they want to get your list of contacts. Everything on Facebook is about friends. And heaven help you if you have more than one type of friend. There is a way to segregate them, but it is difficult and counter intuitive. Everyone is in your friends list, but you add some of them into other lists as well. Some of these lists limit what the person can see, while other lists let you see more of what the person posts. It can make for a confusing mess since you are never completely sure who you are posting information to when you post something.

Then there is the entire "like button" issue. The like button is one of the things that swept the Internet several years ago. There are like buttons on virtually every web page, and of course you can also like anything that appears on Facebook as well.

One of the first things that appeared on my Facebook wall was a picture of a naked man looking thoughtful and sitting outside. It was a gorgeous picture, and I couldn't help but hit the like button below it. Then I wondered whether my 82 year old aunt was just informed that I liked that picture. Did it appear on her Facebook wall? I tried to find out, but Facebook doesn't really tell you anything of any value when you are trying to understand their service. I ended up using Google to look up answers for Facebook. And sure enough, everything you like is public by default. It took me hours to find and change the setting, and I still don't know whether it appeared on my aunts Facebook page. I guess the only way I will know for sure is if she either unfriends me or comments that I have good taste in photography.

So that's my experience so far with Facebook. It is a privacy nightmare with no way of telling who has access to anything you do on the service. If you limit your postings to be completely safe, then the service is worthless. Sure people will be able to read them, but no one will want to. But the more open you try to be with your friends by treating them like, well, friends; the more danger you are in of giving your family heart palpitations.

There is no doubt in my mind that Google+ is superior to Facebook in every way. Their privacy settings are easy to use and leave virtually no room for error. Their service is quick and responsive. They make it easy to find what you want to know about your friends, and keep the information you don't want your family to know private. The only problem with Google+ is that it is like the dance that no one showed up to. All your friends are over at Facebook. Lord help us all.

Facebook Peepshow?

Okay, I'm going to try Facebook again. I have used Facebook in the past, but the experience left me entirely underwhelmed. The constant deluge of crap was a turnoff instead of something interesting. And on top of the effluent stream of nonsense, there was the problem of everyone from the government to advertisers interested in every little detail about your life. Facebook gave them the perfect vehicle to pry the lid off of anything you might have once considered private. Since there was little of value on Facebook at the time, it didn't seem like a worthwhile trade-off.

Lack of connections with other people has brought me back to the table with Facebook. I have a tendency to live the life of a hermit and most of my friends are scattered out over the United States and the rest of the world. Despite how much I like the privacy features of Google+, there just isn't anyone there. And what is a social network without people?

I am still skeptical about the benefits of Facebook, and the privacy features are questionable to say the least. I consider it highly likely that at some point in the future my sweet little aunt is going to end up receiving a post covering atheism, sex positive interactions, liberal ideology, or something else that is going to send her heart racing; and not in a good way. The controls aren't intuitive, and judging from Facebook's past, they could be changed at any time without notice.

Having a Facebook account still feels like walking out of the bathroom not knowing whether you have your dress tucked into the back of your panties of not. The only real difference is that you are at least walking out of the bathroom with friends.